Come on Texas!

Well regulated means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but that the militia was prepared to do its duty.

I would have no way of knowing that. All that I’m trying to point out is that chiefs, and many that I know personally are opposing this for the danger they perceive that this will bring to their officers, not their politics. Constantly using politics to shame every opinion that’s different than yours is no different to me than people constantly calling anyone with a view different than their own a racist.

There is an expletive at the end. ( F )

I say it doesn't pass.

Funny how in 18 other states it isn't a problem.

Where is the evidence? There are 20 states with some form of constitutional carry. Are there gun fights in the streets in Arizona? Seems the gun fights are in places with more gun restrictions, not less.

It’s already legal to have a gun in your car, thanks to the castle doctrine. How would your example have been impacted by constitutional carry?

So because it would allow an ILLEGAL person to carry, legal people shouldn’t be allowed to? Makes perfect sense. Felons already are law breakers. Illegal immigrants are already law breakers. Otherwise law abiding citizens can’t carry unless going through a process and paying a fee. Circumstances change a lot quicker than the process of going through getting a LTC allows. When seconds count,the police are minutes away. Extrapolate that out to carrying. Now what?

If it was put to a popular vote it would win overwhelmingly in Texasj

What difference does it make? Do you think felons commit crimes with a gun on their hip? Or do they conceal it before they car jack, rob a store, do a drive by, etc? All of the sudden we’re worried about people who would advertise they’re carrying a gun by openly carrying it? Open carry with a LTC has been allowed for a couple years now. How many people have you even seen openly carry?

Yes and Yes.

Both issues are a pretty easy yes if you think about the reality of it. These things have been going on since the beginning of time despite people trying to stop them based on their own personal, cultural or societal moralities.

Making them illegal actually makes them more dangerous for those engaged in these behaviors and society and communities at large.

I could expand upon just those two ideas at nauseam... I'll digress other than to say yeah I do think I'm probably a true Libertarian.

Lee, I wasn't calling names (no one specific was impugned in an effort to "shame" anyone in the making of my comment) and politics are huge in this country or have you not noticed that politics affects practically every facet of society. Also I am not saying it's the police chiefs' political leanings but rather the mayors'. I never once used the word "Liberal" to describe the police chiefs nor mayors. I said "Democrat" to which you may infer whatever you want from that.

Can you argue that police chiefs do not serve at the pleasure of the mayors? Can you argue that these mayors are not political? (we're talking big city here because the original comment I responded too said "every major police chief in the state" so let's rule out small town chiefs.) Can you logically refute that the Democrat Party is hard core anti firearm at this point in our country's history. This was the basis for my "dumbest generalization" you have ever seen. I think it's a pretty strong basis for my statement and I'll stand by the logical course I followed in making it. But we all have opinions.

I've had this argument a dozen times with my dad. I'm having flashbacks now.

What’s your response?